By: Cures on Domenica 19 Giugno 2011 12:10
Proprio non va giù agli americani la storia di Rossi. Tentano in tutti i modi di smontarla con i più svariati mezzi e dall’altra di batterlo sul fronte del brevetto.
Sto seguendo un tentativo di denigrazione fatto da un tal Krivit (noto nell’ambiente LERN) che si sta preparando con le sue mani una figuraccia colossale
Inoltre mi sembra che un tizio abbia indicato a Rossi la via giusta per proteggere il brevetto
J Michael P
June 18th, 2011 at 8:40 AM
reposting, as my first try has not appeared, sorry if this is a duplicate post.
Dear Dr. Rossi – I have read your recent statements that you must, for reasons related to patent law, engineer a self-destruct function in the E-cat. I have a few observations, which I hope may be helpful. I regret that I cannot write in Italian.
- First, with respect, I believe you cannot design a self-destruct function effective against reverse engineering. The analytic techniques available to laboratories with national resources are extraordinary and will be used on your technology.
Furthermore, patents will not protect you from reverse engineering. There are nations that have no regard for intellectual property protection under laws originating outside their borders, and patent protection is ineffective against them.
However, under patent law in the USA, most of Europe, and Japan, it is perfectly practical for you to discuss your technology with potential production partners under enforceable nondisclosure agreements. This is common industrial practice. It does not in any way preclude getting patents on your technology. I believe this offers a road to bringing your technology to the world market quite rapidly and profitably.
- Second, I have reviewed your published US patent application (US 2011/0005506 A1, Jan 13, 2011). I am concerned that the application won’t provide the protection you wish.
A USA patent application must contain what is termed an “enabling disclosure”. As a matter of law, it must tell someone “skilled in the art” how to practice the invention. If it does not, the examiner will not grant a patent. If the examiner does grant a patent for an application that has a flawed enabling disclosure, it is very easy to attack and invalidate that patent.
Your application does not name the catalysts you use. From what I have read, the catalysts make the difference between an interesting academic effect and something that is commercially useful. In other words, your application does not contain an enabling disclosure for the technology’s commercially valuable mode of use.
If the US Patent Office were to grant a patent for this application, I believe there would be one of two results: at best, the patent would be limited to Ni/H systems that do not use catalysts (because the catalysts were not disclosed); at worst, the entire patent would easily be invalidated. In either case, you would not have the protection you seek.
In my opinion, your patent counsel should have advised you to disclose your catalysts. There are other aspects of the application that I find weak. I would *strongly* recommend you seek a second opinion from independent patent counsel. This application could have been much, much better.
I write as someone who has 39 US patents and fewer overseas patents in the field of advanced materials. I have been through the tension between full disclosure and the need for secrecy many times, and as well the inevitable complications that investors bring to that process. I also write as someone who is hopeful of your success, and as one of the many who await independent replication of your work.
Il mio interesse è peloso. Ho fretta di acquistare un giocattolo da almeno 30kW di cui 10 elettrici e 20 termici